The XBox will be cheap because Microsoft can afford to lose money on the
Console because it makes it's money from royalties on games sold. That's
why you will have to buy a remote to get the dvd working, they won't make
any royalties on DVD rentals :) Xbox will run at 640X480 but it'll be
FSAAed to get rid of the jaggies.
ps. When the XBox is released late this year I bet the PC will be at least
as fast if not faster (even if they will cost 7X more :p)
pps. I bet Xbox games will cost an arm and a leg compared to the PC
version.
> There is no doubt that the X-Box will outperform the PC. You have to
> remember that the X-Box doesn't have any OS overhead (all OS is via ROM),
no
> PCI bus, no AGP bus and true 32-bit access to EVERYTHING! Most of us still
> use Win9x and we forget that a lot of the code is 16-bit and our CPU
spends
> a lot of its time 'thunking'. Windows 2000 doesn't have any 16-bit code
but
> it's underlying security and sometimes, poor drivers, cause it to be a tad
> slower than Win9x. Another advantage is all software will be optimized for
> one set of hardware. No need for a programmer to add branches for non-MMX,
> MMX, SSE, 3DNow, etc.. Every feature in the unit will be at the
programmer's
> disposal. The other thing most people forget is that for the moment, ALL
> X-Box games will be 640x480. We're used to 1024x768 on our PC's and the
> lower resolution will allow faster games. It will be a while before PC's
> begin to surpass the X-Box and then we'll still have to wait for the
> software to catch up.
> As a long time PC gamer, I'm a little disappointed. Mainly because PC
***
> is becoming very expensive and fewer and fewer developers are devoting
> resources to PC development. It also doesn't help when Microsoft can
release
> a kick ass *** system for $300 and for us to buy the same video card
for
> our PC's will cost $400-500 minimum. For the first time since my Super
> Nintendo, I might be tempted to pick up a *** console. Then
again...Nah.
> Michael M
> > The X-Box is as likely to ever manage 125 million polygons per second,
as
> my
> > old V3 was likely to manage the 8 million it said on the box. These
> numbers
> > are all best case scenarios.
> > This 125 million polygons per second will be without texture mapping,
> > without z-buffering, without shading, in 16-bit colour only, in very low
> res
> > and using entirely static (from frame to frame) geometry. In a real
game
> > I'd be surprised to see it manage more than 25-30 million.
> > Anyway, the point of the quote, that the X-Box will out-perform a
GeForce
> 3
> > (same hardware), is correct. X-Box does have a slower CPU though,
> compared
> > with what most *** PC's will be running at the time of the X-Box's
> > launch. I've got a 650 now, which is more or less what the X-Box will
> have,
> > but by October lots of PC's, including mine will have >1000. X-Box also
> has
> > very little RAM. Some PC games already struggle with 64 mb, and that's
> what
> > the X-Box has.
> > Plus all X-Box games will be aimed at kids, so if you're into games with
> > depth which require thought, the PC will always be best.
